With the conclusion of the rapid-fire series of General Assemblies for 2010 I can now turn to reflection and synthesis of the deliberations of the meetings. For those who are looking for more information, and maybe to do their own reflection on global Presbyterianism, here are links to some official summaries and other sources, including mine, that you might find helpful:
- 55th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Taiwan — 6-10 April 2010
- General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland — 17-21 May 2010, Edinburgh
- Official – Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Thursday night
- General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland (Continuing) — 21 May 2010
- General Assembly of the Church of Scotland — 20-26 May 2010, Edinburgh
- Press Releases
- Summaries including the final wrap-up
- 136th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada — 6-11 June 2010, Sydney, Cape Breton
- 206th Stated Meeting of General Synod Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church — 8-10 June 2010, Bonclarken, Flat Rock, NC
- The ARP web site refers us to the Aquila Report for reports from Wednesday AM, Wednesday PM, Wednesday PM Part 2, and Thursday
- General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland — 10-13 June 2010, Belfast
- Daily reviews from the Assembly News page
- 180th General Assembly of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church — 13-18 June 2010, Dickson, Tenn.
- Official Summary of Actions
- 179th General Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America — 21-25 June 2010, Beaver Falls, Pa.
- Official Synod Facebook Page with Summaries and Discussion
- RPCNA Facebook Page with more info
- Photo stream
- 30th General Assembly of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church — 23-26 June 2010, Englewood, Co.
- Official Assembly Review
- And in a unique twist the recipies for some of the dishes at the GA are being posted on the Facebook Page (look on the wall)
- Uniting General Council of the World Communion of Reformed Churches — 18-27 June 2010, Grand Rapids, Mich.
- Summary Web Page with links to detailed information
- 38th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America — 29 June – 2 July 2010, Nashville, Tenn.
- Official Actions of the General Assembly
- Additional individual news reports from byFaith Online
- 219th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) — 3 – 10 July 2010, Minneapolis, Minn.
- Assembly In Brief
- Pastoral Letter
- My Summary
- More responses to the General Assembly from GAhelp.net
- 77th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church — 7-14 July 2010, Palos Heights, Ill.
There are still a few more to go this summer and fall but the bulk of them have no concluded. Have fun catching up.
A question about the 219th GA of the PCUSA, regarding ordination standards:
Let’s assume, as I believe you did in an earlier post, that the new Form of Government is passed by the Presbyteries. It contains, unchanged, the text of the existing “fidelity and chastity” clause, G-6.0106b.
Does passage of the nFOG render the amendments to ordination standards moot? They will be changes to a no-longer-in-force document.
Also, are there any other changes to the Form of Government proposed that would be rendered pointless? I didn’t see any, but…
What about the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North American Synod?
Hi Andy,
A very good question…
I have been looking for something in writing about this but not finding what I thought I remembered seeing I will go completely from memory, a dangerous thing to do. (It is there somewhere so I’ll update if I find it or someone else points is out.)
In the amendment process it has been the case that some proposed amendments have contradictory, or at least intersecting, results. This happened with the 218th GA regarding Certified Christian Educators. If both pass it is my memory that the Stated Clerk is empowered to “merge” the two amendments to the same section. The clerk does not “reconcile” the wording so that it actually makes sense. As I remember the clerk’s office put out a table showing the result if one, the other, or both passed and what their understanding of the effect would be. After the 209th approved CLP’s it took a couple more assemblies to sort out all the necessary references in the FOG.
It is also my memory that coming into the 218th GA there was a list or table of all the requested amendments to the Book of Order and what section would be amended in the existing Book and what section would be amended if the nFOG passed. I can’t say that I remember seeing that directive or list this year, maybe out of caution about what the nFOG would finally look like or whether it would be recommended at all.
Having said all that, it is my understanding a proposed amendment could be rendered meaningless if nFOG eliminates that section of the Form of Government. (I have not checked to see if there are any of those this year.) But, if the new Form of Government does contain that corresponding section then a constitutional amendment would be applied to the corresponding text, but with new number, in the nFOG. Since the W and D sections are not part of the revision there should be no confusion there. Also, since almost no text has been removed from the new Foundations section and I don’t believe any overtures asked for amendment of the current first four chapters anyway, I don’t think there is an issue there.
Maybe a good model for what would happen is the directive about figuring out how all the existing Authoritative Interpretations apply to the nFOG if adopted:
http://www.pc-biz.org/Explorer.aspx?id=3375&promoID=185
I’ll keep looking for the instructions about all this. I’m sure it will appear in the intro to the Amendments booklet this year. (Can’t you just wait to see what that looks like with the nFOG in it.)
Hope this helps. If anyone knows where that info is available now let me know and I’ll add the link here.
Mr. Emory,
Thank you very much for the reminder. I will add that General Synod to both of my lists right now.
Thanks, Steve. Your response raised a few points I hadn’t considered.
That said, having looked at this a second and third time, I’m convinced that approval of the nFOG would render the ordination amendment a dead letter.
I also recall seeing a list of corresponding chapters, or something to that effect. What the GA actually passed, though, wasn’t a list of correspondence, but an actual text. The only reference to the existing FOG is found in the rationale. More to the point, the question posed by the GA to the presbyteries is:
“Shall the Book of Order be amended by striking out the text of Chapters I–XVIII of the current Form of Government (G-1.0000–G-18.0401) and inserting two documents, Foundations of Presbyterian Polity and a new Form of Government, to read as follows…”
I may be missing something here, but it seems that since the FOG is to be struck and substituted, any changes approved prior to that substitution would be moot.
The only reference I can find to continuity of any sort is in the ACC’s opinion on authoritative interpretations. The ACC suggests that:
“If language is approved that is identical to, or essentially the same as the language of constitutional provisions that have already been interpreted, current authoritative interpretations would continue in force. The ACC believes this would apply, for example, to authoritative interpretations regarding current G-6.0106b, G-6.0108, G-8.0201, and G-9.0404d.”
The potential for a pointless vote on G-6.0106b isn’t something I’ve heard anyone speak about. I expect that if I’m right (a big if), and if this were better understood, it might change the way some presbyteries vote on the nFOG. Pro-gay-ordination folks who are also pro-nFOG could face a real dilemma.
One can also imagine nightmare scenarios in which the ordination amendment is approved months before the nFOG, as presbyteries wait to the last minute to vote in order to give commissioners time to sort everything out. In which case, gay ordination (as usually understood) would be permitted, and then forbidden again. Nice.